Idea Cellular divorced me...

My DCE-days cellular number - 9891681609 - I've lost it. When I returned from South Korea a few weeks back, I was no longer the owner of my own prepaid mobile number. Idea told me yesterday that they had sold my "lifetime" mobile number to some Krishna Sharma while I was in Seoul, without asking or telling me. Not even an email came to my registered email address. Idea folks tell me that there's no way that I can get back my number now. In fact, they tell me that it isn't even my number now. I've been using this number for 6-7 years now. At an average rate of ~20 rupees per day [600 a month], I've paid them in excess of INR 50,000 over the last 7 years. Yes, INR fifty thousand in balance recharges. Maybe even more, since I've extensively used my phone for all types of services - voice, SMS, Internet access and roaming. And Idea didn't give any value to this years-old relationship. All my friends, relatives, business relations and institutions [banks, insurance companies, past employer, etc.] have my this number registered in their records. Now I'll have to change my registered mobile number in all of these records.

This "lifetime" relationship didn't last a lifetime. It's sad, but as always, life is about moving on.

Comparing a suicide bomber to a cruise missile [UPDATED]

This thought came to my mind yesterday, when my family was having some discussions about a news story, while we were watching TV.

What is a suicide bomber like? He's like a very, very intelligent cruise missile. A cruise missile cruises its way to its target. It can be steered during its course, and it explodes and damages/destroys its target when it finally reaches it.

If we forget for a while that a suicide bomber is a human whereas a cruise missile is a machine, a suicide bomber can be thought of as a cruise missile that happens to also have all the nice qualities of a human - intelligence, locomotion, dexterity, etc. A cruise missile might be able to carry higher and deadlier payload [and faster too], but contemporary cruise missiles can't beat the intelligence of a human suicide bomber. The bomber can look around at the situation and can continuously adjust his approach depending upon changing circumstances - his path, his gestures, his timing, etc. - in order to ensure a successful kill. A modern cruise missile cannot do this.

Yet, fundamentally the method and purpose of both weapons remains the same - rapidly travel to the target while evading detection, and damage/destroy the target in a suicidal way.

UPDATE [10-Nov-15]: Armed drones carrying cruise missiles can also be roughly thought of as a type of cruise missile, since both follow a "cruising" path, or more correctly, a path that can be dynamically adjusted in real-time. On the other hand, while missile-laden drones provide photographic and other data, cruise missiles don't [or could cruise missiles be armed with high-speed cameras to provide photos/videos of the path that the missile traverses?].

Evidence of media bias at The New York Times

This post is supposed to be a "living post" that'll be updated as I come across more biased NYT stories. PDF versions of all stories mentioned here can be found in this SkyDrive folder.

Syrian Forces Shell Cities as Opposition Picks Leader, NYT, 10-Jun-12 [link]

Why biased? NYT is careful about what it presents as a fact [versus a claim]. If the US claims [even if without any proof] that Assad killed Syrian people, NYT typically writes something like "Syrian Government Shells Civilians", thus presenting the unproven claim by US as a fact. But if something is said by Assad or by Russia's Sergey Lavrov, NYT typically writes something like "Syrian Government Denies Responsibility For Massacre" [instead of "Syrian Government Not Responsible For Massacre"], thus presenting Assad's or Lavrov's claims as claims. But in the story linked above, the NYT presented as fact something that was simply a claim by "opponents of the government" [we don't even know who these opponents exactly are]. Why did NYT present the alleged shelling claimed by opponents with unclear identity as a fact in the title, when Syria's or Russia's statements are never presented as facts, either in the titles or in the body of the news?

Update [25-Jun-15]: Documents on 2012 Drone Strike Detail How Terrorists Are Targeted, NYT, Jun'15 [link]

Why biased? NYT has used the authoritative term Terrorists in the title of this news story, whereas it is well-established that the targeted folks are suspects. This is how the NYT secretly brainwashes its readers.

Were Live Tiles in Windows Phone inspired by iOS? Could Android combine iOS icons with Live Tiles?

First - looking at the icon of the Calendar application in iOS [which shows the current date in the icon itself], it's possible that the designers of Live Tiles [images below] at Microsoft were inspired by the live icon of the Calendar app in iOS. Perhaps they thought of making every icon live, and then they realized that they could just do away with the icons and make sort of "boxes" or zones that are live.

Current date seen in icon of Calendar app on iOS

Live Tiles in Windows Phone

Second - looking at the photo of Android 4.0 running on Samsung Galaxy Tab 2, it seems that Google is trying to combine the traditional method of using icons, with the Windows Phone method of using Live Tiles. Both icons and Live Tiles can be seen.

Android 4.0 on Samsung Galaxy Tab 2

Pro-America bias in titles of some articles of English language Wikipedia

I'm giving the example of Comair only to show the pro-USA bias that's present in titles of some Wikipedia articles.

Comair stands for two unrelated airlines - one that was founded in South Africa in 1943, and the other which was founded in the US in 1977. Since the brand name of these two airlines is identical, a natural way to give distinct titles to the respective articles for these two airlines would be:

• Comair (South Africa)
• Comair (USA)

However, as show in the screenshot below, the titles are Comair and Comair (South Africa). Is the former more of Comair than the latter? Why is the country moniker attached only to the South African airline? Is it inferior to the American Comair? This is just one example [out of hundreds] of even Wikipedia assuming American companies, American names, American people, American products, American researchers, etc., as the standard, and those from rest of the world requiring special clarifications or disclaimers.

Summarizing the issues faced by the Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) today

The Indian Institutes of Management, or IIMs, are as prestigious institutions as something can be. However, Indians know and understand that there are some serious weaknesses in these institutes [compared to elite business schools elsewhere]. The following screenshots almost perfectly summarize the key issues faced by IIMs today:

(source)

(source)

Over-emphasis on CAT/GMAT, lower share of female students, non-existent international student share, and significantly lower average work experience. As an Indian, I know more than what the above charts tell - that most of the students at IIMs are engineers [not so in top business schools elsewhere], and that many students at IIMs are fresh out of college, with zero work experience!

As much as I would like to see these great institutes of my country turn into global business schools, I, myself an MBA student, know and understand well that unless these shortcomings are solved, the IIMs stand no chance of challenging elite Western business schools.

Geometrical (visual) proof of the famous formula {(a+b)^2} = {(a^2) + (b^2) + (2*a*b)}

Yesterday, at the lunch table, a friend told me that at one of his IIM interviews, he was asked to prove the well-known identity {(a+b)^2} = {(a^2) + (b^2) + (2*a*b)} geometrically. He asked me to try this problem. It took me over 5 minutes to come up with a solution, but gladly, I did come up with one. Here it is:

I can imagine that the same method can be applied to prove the identity [(a+b)^3] = [(a^3) + (b^3) + {3*a*b*(a+b)}], and many other identities as well. It'll require the use of Google SketchUp or AutoCAD to create 3D models for these. Let's see if I have the time some day to create a model.

Portable apps that are portable across operating systems (Linux, Mac, Solaris, Windows)

An excerpt from a Wikipedia article on portable applications:

"There is a very restricted category of software that can support a sort of double portability, being both stand alone and cross-platform compatible, able to run on different hardware with little or no modifications, perhaps with minor restrictions. One such software is SymbOS, whose main modules can in their present form be executed on both Amstrad CPC and MSX machines without modification. Only some of its bundled applications are hardware-dependent. To a much lesser extent, Macintosh fat binary applications could be considered as cross-platform, but not always truly portable."

While reading this paragraph, it occurred to me that it is easily possible to create a portable version of Mozilla Firefox which is portable across popular operating systems (Linux, Mac, Solaris, Windows).

A typical install of Firefox consists of two parts. On Windows XP, these are:

1. Core program (platform dependent): Typically, it's inside C:/Program Files/Mozilla Firefox
2. User data (platform independent): Typically, it's inside C:/Documents and Settings/Username/Application Data/Mozilla/Firefox

I believe, it is possible (and relatively simple) to mix 4 builds of the core program (Linux, Mac, Solaris, Windows) in a single folder, so that executables and other program files for each operating system are kept in separate sub-folders, while the user data is common. Separate launchers will be required for each OS. This arrangement shall make bookmarks, cache, history, passwords, etc., available in all of the 4 builds. Such a release of Firefox will be quite useful to many users, as it will allow a person to carry a truly portable application, one that gives the ability to seamlessly hop from Ubuntu to Leopard to Solaris to Windows XP.

Potential benefits of such a release:

1. No need to use Foxmarks, at least for some users. Hop across OSes without having to sync anything.
2. Carry the application platform as well as applications, across operating systems. To me, this one benefit has disruptive potential. Imagine that a user has a HyperPortable version of Firefox (the one envisioned in this post), and the user installs some extensions on it (a calculator, some basic games, a basic word processor, etc.). The HyperPortable version of Firefox allows the user to carry not only Firefox (and user data) across OSes, it also allows carrying these applications that run on top of Firefox. As Web browsers start being used more and more as application platforms, the importance as well as usefulness of this portability will only increase.

Banner ads on BBC website are obtrusive

I used to love 4 things about the BBC website:

1. Well-designed interface (elegant and soothing).
2. Lightweight webpages, ensuring speedy browsing.
3. The quality of journalism was top notch.
4. There were no ads whatsoever.

Although the first three still hold true, the fourth one does not. To make things worse, banner ads on BBC actually obstruct the actual article now. The screenshots below make this clear. It can be seen that the article on BBC begins way too low on the webpage (over half of the top portion of the visible area of webpage is non-article portion - the actual article starts far below).

More sensible use of screen space has been made on The New York Times website. The article starts at a comfortably-high point compared to BBC website.

It will be sensible if BBC modifies the interface so that the interface and banner ads do not take so much of visible screen space, that it starts to feel as if the actual article is now an "also present".

Update: A better screenshot from BBC - with more news, zero ads.

Update [27-Sep-16]: This screenshot below, which I took in Apr'11, shows something similar, albeit the extent of intrusiveness is much higher here.

Update [11-Mar-17]: Firstpost, which once was a good website, is now on a clear path to self-destruction, thanks to the insatiable ad-greed of its promoters and Web team.

Update [30-May-18]: Even on the NYT!

Which game consoles would I buy If I had USD 500-600, and why not to buy a PlayStation 3

ALSO SEE: A related post by me on Facebook [link].

Currently, the Sony PlayStation 3 starts at about $500 for the standard version, and goes up to $600 for the premium version. Although many people are buying the $600 PS3, I believe that they could have got much more value for their 600 dollars. If I were to spend $600 on video game consoles, what I would not have done is to buy a PS3, and what I would have done is:

• Buy a Sony PlayStation 2 for $125, plus a Nintendo Wii [$250], as well as a Sony PSP [$200], for a total of $575. With the remaining $25, I would have bought a Wii classic controller [$20]. I would have spent the remaining 5 dollars feeding myself with a burger and a coke - celebrating a wiser buy! It is not hard to observe that this deal provides significantly higher value for money [VFM] than a PS3 alone. Specifically, this deal allows one to use the huge library of now-cheap PS2 games, the fun-filled modern gaming of Wii, and the portable entertainment and gaming experiences of the PSP. This deal is also more suitable for those households which have more than one kid. However, this package lacks the ultra-advanced graphics of PS3 games.
• An alternative deal, suitable for those who don't want to sacrifice graphics quality is - an Xbox 360 Core [X360] for $300, a Wii [$250], 2 Wii classic controllers [$40], and double the amount of burgers and coke... This package provides two next-generation game consoles, without sacrificing on graphics quality. Undoubtedly, this deal is better than the $600 PS3.
• Yet another alternative is to go for the X360 Core [$300], the PS2 [$125] and accessories/games worth $175. Once again, this package provides more VFM than the $600 PS3.
• Yet another alternative is to buy the standard X360 [$400], a PS2 [$125] and accessories worth $75. Again, a better buy than the $600 PS3.

PS3's VFM increases if one goes for the $500 version. It's more difficult to produce an alternative package that provides as much VFM as the $500 PS3. Some individuals may find more value in the X360 Core + PS2 + accessories [total $500] package, while others may find more value in Wii + PS2 + accessories + some games [total $500] package.

Of course, one can work out a similar alternative deal for the $400 X360 - a $250 Wii + $125 PS2 + a Wii classic controller.

The whole idea behind these alternative deals is to maximize the VFM while minimizing loss of functionality. One must also remember that these alternative deals get the owner multiple devices, providing redundancy [decreased usage of each device will increase their life; since there are multiple devices, more people can use them simultaneously].

Two things to note here:

1. The PS2 can play DVDs, as well as games from the first generation PlayStation [PS1].
2. The Wii can play NES, SNES, Sega Genesis, Turbo-Grafx 16, Nintendo 64 and GameCube games, in addition to Wii games. It is 7 game consoles in one body.

As a side note, it must be remembered that the PS3 can play all PS3, PS2 and PS1 games. One must carefully weigh one's gaming requirements before choosing a particular package. It must also be remembered that the PS3 includes an inbuilt Blu-ray player, which may be provide more value to select individuals.

Update (April 2009): It is now possible to buy an Xbox 360 Pro ($299) along with a PS2 ($99) for the price of one PS3 ($399 - and this PS3 does not even have backward compatibility with PS2 games). It is also possible to buy an Xbox 360 Arcade system along with a Blu-ray player for $399 total, a more sensible deal in my opinion than a PS3.

Update [Jul'16]: Following article is directly related to this idea - "Why The US Navy Should Build Smaller Aircraft Carriers".

Update [Mar'21]: Other things I could have spent that $1,000 on while waiting to order an iPhone X at 3am [link].

Update [May'21]: One of my relatives bought a Kit Seltos HTX and also got accessories installed from the showroom for a total of about INR 15.5 lakh [current Seltos prices are about 50K higher than when he bought]. This is his only car and he really needs two cars. He could've bought two cars while spending the same amount of money - a Skoda Rapid and a Nissan Magnite. I don't know about others, but to me this dual car deal looks much, much better than the single Seltos.

***

Update [Jul'21]: The general idea of choosing more "value" applies even to picking a single product. It isn't just about splitting a costlier product into two, higher-value-received products. For example, there's no comparison between the MG Hector / Hector Plus and the Skoda Kushaq - size, grandeur, body weight, road presence, solidity, etc. The screenshot below shows that only a fool would buy the Kushaq instead of Hector / Hector Plus.

***

Update [Jul'21]: We booked Hector Plus 7-seater diesel Super variant for approximately INR 18.5 lakh rupees on-road price. Did we violate my own principles and ideas outlined in this post? Likely yes. Could we have bought two good cars for this price instead of one great car - theoretically yes, practically no, since the reason why we bought the Hector Plus was specifically related to the current situation and requirement.

***